What do you think? Are we going to attack or invade Iran?

[cool user name]

I think if we send in airstrikes, invasion is inevitable. Iran can strike at Saudi Arabia, Israel, shut off the Straits of Hormuz, as well as target our vessels at sea.

Once that occurs, we'd be "forced" to land on Iranian soil (possibly with Saudi and Israeli help).

Then you can say hello to World War IV since I'm sure China and Russia aren't going to just sit on the sidelines and watch.

Comments?

[BlueStorm]

1. Thermonuclear war?

God I hope not :scary:

Blue

[cool user name]

2. Something's going to happen.

When Bush is cornered, cities die.

[MadMaddie]

4. Actually that is true isn't it? New Orleans and the Gulf Coast

has suffered a death of sorts....Iraq....Africa....

He has already set into motion events that cannot be stopped....

With what troops will he attack Iran with.....?
He is willing to kill millions of Iranians....for what? Because he doesn't like their leader? If he attacks Iran....Russia and China will get involved and it will be them against the US....Russia gets a lot of their oil from Iran....

This is a foolish and childish move..but considering the source not unexpected!!

[cool user name]

5. Yes, Bush is dangerous ... he's back into a corner and he'll strike whereever ...

Couple that with Saudi Arabia's itching to protect the Sunnis in Iraq and we have a perfect recipe for disaster.

Plus, as long as it makes money for Halliburton, who cares? :shrug:

[EST]

3. The additional troops, which bush is destroying the national

guard to get, plus the additional naval units being sent to the gulf, have my own "see bush lie" antenna quivering.

[TomInTib]

6. Not going to happen

We will probably steam into the Gulf, show them how big our dick looks through a magnifying glass.

And that is all.

The Joint Chiefs will go publicly ballistic before they let they WH go on the offensive.

[cool user name]

8. I wouldn't be so sure.

Bush gets what Bush wants.

[TomInTib]

18. Not any more

When he has been served notice by Baker AND the Joint Chiefs, even he will listen.

Always keep in mind that Baker doesn't answer to the Bushes, it is the other way around.

[cool user name]

20. But you don't account for Cheney ...

I'm sure that there may be a battle between the shitheads and the ultra-shitheads but Bush is still the fuckup-in-chief.

What he wants, he'll get no matter how large the mountain of bodies gets.

[TomInTib]

31. Cheney answers to the Armstrongs and the Armstrongs answer to

Baker.

Trust me on this.

[cool user name]

35. Just saw this (interesting):

HOW AN ATTACK WOULD UNFOLD
A military assault on nuclear plants in Iran remains an option for U.S.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/01/ING9ULB4N11.DTL

[Trajan]

45. He WONT get what he wants ...

and he hasnt of late ....

Bush cannot move the troops there himself, and it is clear the Joint Chiefs are balking at increasing the troop strength in Iraq ...... Iran ? ..... They WONT let it happen ....

Just like Tom said : dick wagging, and not much else .....

[TahitiNut]

19. There are lots of ways an 'attack' on a US Naval vessel could happen.

Saber rattling is intentionally provocative. The region has more than legitimately-constituted government interests, but there's enough of them around the Persian Gulf to make it hairy. Are there interests that'd engage in a false flag attack? Probably. Is Iran really too smart to make such an attack? I'm doubtful.

Beyond merely another "Tonkin GUlf" ... what happens if the Israelis think the time is right to strike (missile or air) Iran's nuclear facilities? Is it that inconceivable? I wish it were.

[cool user name]

21. Thank you, TahitiNut.

I've read many of your posts and you seem to be quite knowledgable regarding military matters.

Is my opening post scenario outside the realm of plausibility?

[TahitiNut]

25. I'm very hesitant to use 'plausibility' as a standard for the Cheney/Bush cabal.

They've consistently stepped over the steadily widening bounds of what I'd call 'plausibility.' If anything, that's what most of us are increasingly angered by - the leaps and bounds to the extreme right, stepping over all conventional thinking. Their assault(s) on Social Security; their invasion of Afghanistan even after the Taliban were capitulating; their invasion of Iraq after Saddam (provably) capitulated with the UN resolutions, in substance if not in every detail; their assaults on some of the most well-established principles such as torture and habeas corpus; their wholesale profiteering; their deficit spending; and on and on.

I find that I merely have to try and imagine what pathological interests would do if they thought they could get something out of it. Predicting the behavior of sociopaths isn't my forte.

[cool user name]

27. Just follow the money.

Perhaps Halliburton doesn't have enough? :shrug:

[TomInTib]

33. Iran will not reply

What's-his-name (Achminny-whoever) has no power of decision whatsoever.

The Iranians are not stupid or crazy.

We can probably count on some crazies pulling something.

But it won't be the Iranians.

We will probably try to involve the Israelis.

But they are gun-shy, these days.

No way can we afford a shoot-out in the Straits.

[Buzz Clik]

26. Agreed.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

7. Why do you think * wants more troops?

I see it this way.

US/Israeli joint strikes against nuke sites. May take up to a week.
With pointed incursions, limited penetrating strikes wherever the Iranians get uppity.
This is followed by air strikes against key Iranian military sites, crippling their ability to make any kind of war.

BUT NO INVASION. The increased troops are to prevent/hold back an Iranian invasion of Iraq. After the Air Blitz, its about all they will be able to do, send in an infantry on foot.

Holding Iraq is the real goal. * will let the Iranians sputter, and spit vile threats just in time for the 2008 elections, where the re-thugs will try to paint Democrats as weak on defense with a new war looming for whoever wins. And believe me, * will try to arrange events so that even the most anti-war victor will be forced to fight with Iran.

[cool user name]

12. Ummm ... what little token force we put to stave off an invasion from Iran would be silly.

The Iranians can put millions of boots on the ground if she were attacked. They would swarm Iraq. They would be helped by SCIRI militias. Saudi Arabia would then have to invade. We'd have to flank them in Iran by actually putting boots on the ground. Our troops in Iraq would be sitting ducks.

This is all certainly plausible. Extremely plausible with Bush at the helm. War equals profits and he'll hit the lottery with this one.

[Kelly Rupert]

14. Human wave attacks aren't really useful against air supremacy.

The conventional aspect of a US/Iran war would be over in a matter of weeks. It's the unconventional aspect that we'd have difficulty with. Such a war would probably necessitate our withdrawal--it would be exactly like the Vietnam conflict, with Iran/Basij/Iraq replacing NVA/VC/RVN

[Trajan]

48. The flip side ...

Air Supremacy isnt all that useful against an entrenched army .... They can bomb til kingdom come, and when they are done: hundreds of thousands of angry Irani soldiers will emerge from the dust ....

We can see just how effective air supremacy is in Iraq ....

[MadMaddie]

29. Don't forget the Russians and the Chinese...they have a vested

interest in Iran....

[Kelly Rupert]

32. And an even greater interest in America and the EU.

The Russian and Chinese interests in Iran are why they would move to prevent a war, not why they would move to escalate one. After all, any reason to side with Iran will be totally destroyed within a week of war.

[lovuian]

9. I have said repeatedly WWIII is coming

Bush wants to be the One who takes America down

Its the fall of a Empire

[On the Road]

10. If Bush Orders a Full-Scale Attack on Iran,

I think there might be a silent coup. There may be kind of slow-motion revolt already underway, in which Gates is the leading edge. Not so much in the form of open disobedience, but if an organization is united against a boss, it becomes very difficult for that boss to get anything done.

The politicos of the elder Bush's generation like James Baker are amoral but they are pragmatic and smart. The last thing they want is for the US to enter into another catastrophic war.

Left to himself, I think Bush might go ahead. But I have come to believe that while he was prodded into the War on Iraq, he is being held back from a War on Iran.

[Kelly Rupert]

11. An overly simplistic view of the world.

1. The United States is perfectly capable of sending in airstrikes without an invasion, though we'll have to then deal with the Basij in Iraq.

2. Israel is perfectly capable of destroying any Iranian targets it so chooses, though it will then have to deal with Hezbollah.

3. China and Russia would not side with Iran against the United States in open war. To do so would be tantamount to economic, political, and military self-destruction. They may be political allies because of Iranian fuel, but keep in mind that fuel reserves are't very useful once all the ports, refineries, pipelines, and wells have been bombed. Keep also in mind that the Chinese bubble is entirely dependent on their trade imbalance with America; they won't consign themselves to a depression and a catastrophic war just to tweak the US.

4. The neocons are no longer in control in Washington. The adults are back at the helm. Inertia rules now, not insane idealistic fantasies.

[cool user name]

16. Bush only knows simple.

1. The United States is perfectly capable of sending in airstrikes without an invasion, though we'll have to then deal with the Basij in Iraq.

Not so if Iran shuts down the Straits of Hormuz and starts launching her missiles towards our Naval ships and allies in the Middle East.

2. Israel is perfectly capable of destroying any Iranian targets it so chooses, though it will then have to deal with Hezbollah.

Israel can try to destroy Iranian targets, but from what I've read, she'll fail miserably. This is not another Osirak.

3. China and Russia would not side with Iran against the United States in open war. To do so would be tantamount to economic, political, and military self-destruction. They may be political allies because of Iranian fuel, but keep in mind that fuel reserves are't very useful once all the ports, refineries, pipelines, and wells have been bombed. Keep also in mind that the Chinese bubble is entirely dependent on their trade imbalance with America; they won't consign themselves to a depression and a catastrophic war just to tweak the US.

This is a wildcard, I'll admit but the nature of war is that you can never rule out anything and often, the unpredictable happens. China and Russia will weigh the costs of particpating. If their interests lie with Iran, you can rest assured that they will be providing major support - at the very least.

4. The neocons are no longer in control in Washington. The adults are back at the helm. Inertia rules now, not insane idealistic fantasies.

The neocons still have major influence. Kagan's (from AEI) "surge" advocacy has Bush's full ear. Other hawks are still clamoring about taking out the Iranian regime.

Sy Hersch and Scott Ritter have written for over a year now that we already have low level covert ops in Iran right now and that invasion is highly likely.

I will not, repeat, will not put anything over on this administration. I suggest you don't either.

[Kelly Rupert]

22. The world isn't just Bush.

Not so if Iran shuts down the Straits of Hormuz and starts launching her missiles towards our Naval ships and allies in the Middle East.

The effective range of the Sunburn missile is 65 miles. Sixty-five miles. We can base our aircraft out of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Turkey, or Qatar if necessary, but Iranian anti-ship missiles would not interfere with carrier operations. Moreover, our strategic bombing is utterly untouchable. Iran can cause a good deal of damage to our allies in the ME, and would probably knock down a half-decent number of aircraft. If they get really lucky, they'll cripple a ship or two, but I'd bet against it.

Israel can try to destroy Iranian targets, but from what I've read, she'll fail miserably. This is not another Osirak.

If you want to argue that Israel couldn't possibly destroy all of Iran's nuclear program, sure. Finding it would be hard. But claiming that Iran could so much as achieve air parity is misguided.

This is a wildcard, I'll admit but the nature of war is that you can never rule out anything and often, the unpredictable happens. China and Russia will weigh the costs of particpating. If their interests lie with Iran, you can rest assured that they will be providing major support - at the very least

The thing about politics, though, is that the irrational rarely occurs. China and Russia have absolutely no reason to declare war on America. Even disregarding that a conventional war would be catastrophic for all parties involved, America is simply economically more valuable to both countries than Iran is. Consider that NATO would be bound to become involved--and the EU's cool feelings towards Moscow--and the equation becomes even more drastically skewed. Suppose you were Putin or Hu. Would you side with Iran, or with NATO?

The neocons still have major influence. Kagan's (from AEI) "surge" advocacy has Bush's full ear. Other hawks are still clamoring about taking out the Iranian regime.

Declaring war on Iran is more than "influence." That would require control. The neocons are suggesting a way to fix Iraq and leave. A stupid way to end a war is a totally different thing than starting a new one. They would have had trouble getting their third war three years ago. Now? No way.

[Selatius]

58. If I were Putin, I'd dump some of my US treasury bonds to send the US a message.

Beyond that, I say the economic fallout of dumping bonds would be more than sufficient to send a clear message without sending both of us to the bottom of the ocean in terms of economic relationships. If anything, the Chinese would be in a position to send an even stronger message than even Russia, as they hold more US government bonds. If China dumped even 5 percent of its reserves of US bonds, it would send a shockwave through the US economy.

[Az]

13. Bush cannot order an attack on a foreign nation without congressionall approval

He got it for Afghanastan and Iraq. He does not have it for Iran.

Its saber rattling.

[cool user name]

17. If the situation gets bad enough ...

Congress will approve. I don't care that the Democrats have a majority. If Israel gets hit with missiles or if Saudi Arabian oil fields are ablaze, Congress will have no other option but to grant Bush his invasion.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. Clinton launched cruise missiles into Afghanistan

when he tried to take out Bin Ladin. No prior Congressional approval was sought. When the U.S. bombed Libya's capital, there ws no prior Congressional approval either.

[stillcool]

15. I hope it's posturing..

the worst part about all this shit, is that I never know who's being conned.

[newsdude]

23. I think we're trying to egg them on to the first strike

We've got troops to the east and west.
We're talking with Saudis and the Saudis are coming out against them.

We've surrounded them with force and we attack them diplomatically every day.

Like a dog backed into a corner, they're gonna bite.

And when they do ... boom. America attacks

[TahitiNut]

28. Yep. And it wouldn't take much to fake them 'biting,' imho.

Global corporatists have far too many 'clients'/puppets in that region, now, for me to be sanguine about any hope for stability there in the next 10-20 years, even the 'stability' of the past 10-20 years.

[IDemo]

24. This would be Stupid and Stupider

If Goofy* enacted hostilities against Iran, invasion or not, the economic shock to the American house of cards would be severe. The situations in Baghdad and Tehran would soon become of secondary concern to the chaos here.

Which, as more and more seem to believe nowadays, may be exactly what Goofy is aiming for...

[ConsAreLiars]

30. "We?"

There is no "we" involved in that kind of decision. They are monsters, and they will murder and slaughter us all for whatever they imagine they might gain -- here, in Iraq, in Iran. But they are certainly not "us."

[Disturbed]

38. Aren't we all like the blind guys with the elephant?

:scared:

[Taxloss]

36. It won't happen. Iran is not Iraq.

Not enough troops, no support at home, not enough time, no support in Congress, not enough guided missiles even - they're pricey and stocks are low. It simply won't happen.

[Rex]

37. With a big enough strike group, we can level Iran.

You stick enough carriers, destroyers, cruisers and who knows what else and guess what? You can level a country with conventional weapons.

Will it happen?

For the sake of humanity, I hope not.

[cool user name]

39. Let's say ...

... that one of our missiles takes out a plant and there are Russian experts at the site. What do you think Russia would do?

[Rex]

42. The entire Confederation would go on alert.

Putin would want an apology from Bush. They would begin mobilizing what is left of the Soviet military. Maybe let a nuke get 'lost'. Things would go from bad to worse.

[Kelly Rupert]

43. Russia would probably

complain vociferously. They would put their army on alert, and might consider sending aid to Iran. Meanwhile, the EU complains that Russia was assisting Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Worst-case scenario, Russia shuts off its pipelines, causing a world economic crash.

[Kelly Rupert]

40. Given the authority to proceed without

any regard for human life, our Navy is capable of destroying utterly any nation on Earth. We have twelve carrier battle groups. Twelve. That is enormous destructive potential.

[Rex]

41. Yes and I don't think people realize just what that means.

We've spent the better part of the last century building up this huge, military industrial complex and now we see the 'fruits' of our labors. Floating cities of death. An unbelievable number of them just waiting for the 'call'.

[Trajan]

44. 'Big enough strike group'

What constitutes 'big enough' ? .... Yours is a somewhat open-ended statement, presuming that 'big enough' is somehow available ...

I dont think 'big enough' is available ... I think there are not enough missiles in stores to make a dent in Irani infrastructure .... furthermore: without the ability to completely suppress the Irani standing military, whose troop strength is approx 1,000,000, the ability of the Irani's to wreak havoc in Iraq would be cause for concern with cooler heads in the Pentagon (yes, they do exist) ...

They could wound Iran with conventional weapons, but they could not remove them from the battlefield ...

What then ? .... What do you do with one million angry Iran soldiers on the ground along the Iraqi frontier ? ..... meet them in the open field in Iraq ? ... cross the border with 150,000 US troops into Iran ? ....

Have you actually thought out the possibilities ? .... I have, and unless their is a MASSIVE infusion of troops and material for the US, they CANNOT invade Iran .... they can inflict papers cuts, and not much else ....

Use nukes ? .... now that would be a diplomatic fax paux (notwithstanding the philosophical ramifications) the world has ever seen since Poland in 1939 ....

[Rex]

50. Big enough is what is there in the gulf now.

What do you do with 1,000,000 angry Iranian soldiers on the Iraqi frontier? You bomb them into little pieces and then order some more missiles/bombs.

No one said invasion - why would we do that when we can destroy the country from the gulf? We didn't need to go into Iraq either, we could have sat out in the sea and bombed until nothing moved.

The US has never used but a fraction of it's full military potential. Hardware wise.

Let us hope we never do.

[Trajan]

51. This is he-man nonsense ...

Iran is a big country with MANY opportunities to hunker down ....

Did they bomb the Taliban to smithereens ? ..... NO !

Did they bomb the Iraqi Al Qaeda elements to smithereens ? .... NO !

This kind of talk is simplistic and jingoistic ... as if the mere fact that the US military is involved will make the result supernatural ...

Reminds me of the scene in 'My Cousin Vinnie" about the 'Magic Grits' .... Irani's do NOT die more completely than Afghanis or Iraqis ....

They CAN bomb Iran, but they cannot STOP Iran ....

More like teasing a wounded tiger ....

UNLESS they use nukes, they cannot stop Iran .... and IF they use nukes: the subsequent fallout would poison the region for centuries to come .. perhaps even poison Israel, which is not all that far away ... It could cause the very nation they deign to protect to become uninhabitable ....

[Rex]

53. Whatever, live in a dreamworld if you must.

We can STOP any country on the planet, if we wanted to. We have not done so yet because it simply would not be accepted worldwide.

We wasted trillions on our military, it has never been used fully and hopefully never will be.

It is not nonsense but simple facts.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. Dreamworld?

Is this the dreamworld where the United States isn't losing to third world insurgents?

[Rex]

55. Sure, that is easy to do when you only send in a pittance of troops.

That was a loss before it happen. :eyes:

I'm talking using all our naval assets in an all out assault, it is not man but machine.

Like when Saddam had the 3rd largest armored military in the world. Wow. And we destroyed it utterly in the first Gulf War. With 500,000 troops.

This stuff is easy, I cannot believe people are getting hung up on the idea.

Why some people still look at this like a football game, is a mystery to me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. Ah, I see.

So sending more troops will solve the problem?

[Rex]

59. No withdrawing from the conflict will help solve the problem.

That is my opinion. It means nothing to the reality of the situation. If you don't want to believe we wasted 50 years and trillions to build this massive military then fine. Live in denial I don't care. We have the potential to destroy another nation with conventional weapons. It is a horrible truth. Our tax money paid for it year after year.

No, the only solution is to give up war and make it a global crime. IMO.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

61. Oh, I believe we wasted 50 years and trillions of bucks.

Emphasis on "wasted."

[Rex]

62. Complete waste.

Bullets for butter. I sometimes wonder what the total amount in trillions would be if we went, say from 1955 to 2005. All that wasted capital. :(

[Selatius]

63. Sorry, but the strike group is simply insufficient to deal with Iran alone.

No way the current strike group could launch 2,000 sorties a day. We already have enough land-based aircraft operating in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE to knock out Iran's air defenses without sending in several aircraft carriers. We have a UK airbase in Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean that house strategic bombers like the B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s. An aircraft carrier can barely hold 100 aircraft. You'd need at least 1000 warplanes to do the job flying non-stop for the next several weeks.

Even then, the costs of provoking such a war would outweigh any benefits.

[Pavulon]

65. Doing what

there are no ongoing air ops in iraq of any scale.

[Selatius]

66. They are currently on station to provide air support if requested to US forces in Iraq.

The Iraqi government has not said that the US Airforce can't put their planes on Iraqi airbases.

[Rex]

67. There is no benefit to war, period.

4 strike groups ain't enough? That is 1/3 of our naval fleet.

[Selatius]

68. 4 aircraft carriers only equals roughly 400 warplanes.

Not enough firepower.

[Rex]

69. Only?

What other nation has 4 carriers with 400 warplanes sitting off it's coastline? Not enough is something the military doesn't do. I hope this is all just an expensive bluff.

[Selatius]

70. It's still not enough.

The level of US aircraft and naval activity is simply not at the level it was right before the invasion of Iraq. If there is a build-up, then something big could happen, and other countries would tip you off the US is doing something when they start objecting to the build-up in the region, but I don't think that's the case here. Sabre-rattling sounds more likely than war.

If the US is moving a lot of aircraft into the region, the French, Chinese, and Russians will detect it and start informing the world press the US is up to something.

[cali]

46. No.

I do not believe we'll attack Iran. Not that beefing up the fleet in the Gulf is reassuring. There are always those on DU who are convinced bush will attack Iran. Before the elections in November, there were many who were convinced that an attack was going to be the October surprise. Bush may be CiC but he clearly doesn't have the confidence of the Joint Chiefs. As for a false flag operation, I don't believe that you could get the military to go along with it.

[LSK]

47. no, it wont happen

They would have done it before the elections or during the Israeli/Lebanon thing this summer.

Its not happening.

[WI_DEM]

49. with what troops?

[roamer65]

52. Yes. Expect a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident very soon.

[Pavulon]

56. Search for Iran War

here and you will see lots of threads promising a war.

My bet nope.

[AlienGirl]

60. With what forces?

The US military is already stretched thin to the breaking point. I see no way that *co could get enough popular support for yet another war to recruit enough soldiers to fight Iran, too. They also can't get a draft through Congress anymore, and they know it.

I think we'll see more verbal jabs at Iran, and maybe even clandestine bankrolling of Iranian dissident groups in hope that they will overthrow the current government there, but not a formal military move.

Tucker

[Pavulon]

64. FYI

The USAF could bomb every civil work(power, bridge, telco, etc), food supply, water supply, and piece of military hardware in that country in a few days.

Would they, no. Do they intend to, no.

In the event of a reason to a massive mess could be created there. Ranging from starvation and pandemic disease to nuclear war.

The majority of the air and naval (people who break toys) are idle. Invasion, no.

Note. this post does not advocate the above, only points them out as reality. will the us attack iran first, no.

[Heewack]

71. Possible airstrikes, but no invasion.

Level their capabilities and let the people fight for control.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

72. We don't have enough troops to invade Starbucks

according to half of the talking head generals on the cable shows. It's really frightening what this administration has done to our country.:scared: